You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

I don't see much Ne coming out of Michael at all. Do you ever see him brainstorming seemingly random possibilities? He's an Se and Ni type -- and I think everyone here agrees on that. The real argument is on whether he's a Ti versus Te type.

The idea that a good soldier must have Se is incorrect, though. Si abilities (concretely, focusing on details in front of you to check whether they match previous experience) are just as good -- if not better. The vast majority of soldiers are Si types, and many sportsmen are as well.

Fair enough on the Si/Se comment.

As for Ne, I see it coming out plenty. You see him constantly in situations where he must improvise on the spot and you can see his brain scanning for all sorts of possibilities. He chooses one and acts on it.

The Ti/Te debate is no question to me. If he were Te, I very seriously doubt he'd be helping all those people if they weren't of some use to himself - and in many if not all cases, they aren't.

As for Ne, I see it coming out plenty. You see him constantly in situations where he must improvise on the spot and you can see his brain scanning for all sorts of possibilities.

That isn't Ne though -- he doesn't scan possibilities, he scans his environment for cues as to what to do next. That's Se.

The Ti/Te debate is no question to me. If he were Te, I very seriously doubt he'd be helping all those people if they weren't of some use to himself - and in many if not all cases, they aren't.

I don't think Te types are this selfish by default -- even if they are so more often than not. I prefer to focus on his standard mode of operation -- does he instinctively know how to segment, organize and mobilize resources to get his goal done, or does he analyze the data he has for deductions and figure out what to do from there?

Foresight? What foresight? Michael makes up a tactical plan based on the information he has and then is usually forced to improvise when it all goes to hell. Those plans are almost always modified from past situations he's been in. There is little strategic (long-term) planning, it's all focused on what's happening now (not the 80s TV show).

He actually doesn't have much foresight at all. Fairly often, he just finds himself in some lose/lose situation and tries to make the best of it. He knows there will be consequences later, but just assumes he'll deal with that at some other point. He doesn't waste his time on a million contingency plans. He just acts (not to say he doesn't strategize, he just thinks pretty short term).

He's really not much of a long term planner. He narrows his strategizing scope to the issue at hand and calls everything else irrelevant.

I'm quite sure of ISTP as well...at least as sure as I can be about a fictional character.

He actually doesn't have much foresight at all. Fairly often, he just finds himself in some lose/lose situation and tries to make the best of it. He knows there will be consequences later, but just assumes he'll deal with that at some other point. He doesn't waste his time on a million contingency plans. He just acts (not to say he doesn't strategize, he just thinks pretty short term).

He's really not much of a long term planner. He narrows his strategizing scope to the issue at hand and calls everything else irrelevant.

I'm quite sure of ISTP as well...at least as sure as I can be about a fictional character.

Hmmm, it seems I'm misunderstanding and have misunderstood the difference between Se and Ne. You bring up good points about his process in dealing with certain situations. It seemed to me that being able to come up with solutions on the fly with limited resources was a result of that Ne function, but now I can very easily see that as just a part of his training. But you're right now that I think about it - he doesn't use much foresight at all. He's very much in the moment - even when it comes to improvising solutions to problems. I think it's this difference between searching for cues (as Aleksei said) vs. seeing possibilities that I got tripped up.

Originally Posted by Aleksei

That isn't Ne though -- he doesn't scan possibilities, he scans his environment for cues as to what to do next. That's Se.

I don't think Te types are this selfish by default -- even if they are so more often than not. I prefer to focus on his standard mode of operation -- does he instinctively know how to segment, organize and mobilize resources to get his goal done, or does he analyze the data he has for deductions and figure out what to do from there?

Again, I'm reassessing the way I understand these cognitive functions now. If Te function is indicative of your first question (instinctively knowing how to segment, organize, and mobilize resources), then yeah I would agree there, too. My previous understanding of the Te function, I think, got mixed up with the Ti function - as I think the Ti function is more prone only interact with the environment in a way that's useful to him/her. Te, it seems now, is about segment and organizing the world around him into workable components. That makes a lot more sense in Michael's case.

Hmm... I think we were all wrong. Michael is some sort of STJ. Listen closely to his internal dialogue; it's all "When X happens, spies do A, B, and C. If the tools for C are not available, then substitute by tying a squirrel to a microphone*." Basically, everything he does he does it on basis of something that's happened to him on the job, combined with a little McGyvering to make up for lacking resources (which would be more Ne). And everything he says or thinks is extremely structured, in the way a Te user would say so. None of the scatterbrained rambling of Ti, nor the Se/Ni perspective of thinking from the present onward (as opposed to from the present back, as Ne/Si does).

Listen closely to his internal dialogue; it's all "When X happens, spies do A, B, and C. If the tools for C are not available, then substitute by tying a squirrel to a microphone*." Basically, everything he does he does it on basis of something that's happened to him on the job, combined with a little McGyvering to make up for lacking resources

You just described a chart-the-course ISTP.

ISTPs have a Chart-the-Course Interaction Style, which goes with a desire to enter a situation with some sort of course of action in mind. It doesn't have to be a detailed plan and ISTPs often seem planful as they analyze a situation in anticipation of what is likely to happen. ISTPs and INTJs share this Interaction Style and so would look alike in that way.

The problem is he's not analyzing on basis of what is likely to happen based on present observations (Se), he's analyzing on basis of having connected what's happening to something that already happened (Si).

I would question the validity of the Berens type guide in any case. based on it I'm supposed to be ENTJ, which is not even close to accurate.